Vid Request: Texas vs Oklahoma
 

Goaltending call at about the 11:00 mark of 2nd half. Missed call.

Good example of why we should not be trying to make these kind of calls from the L. This was my lesson learned from my game tonight where I had probably my worst call of the year with a foul on a clean block up top.

Leave this stuff to the outside officials!!

It sure looks like they messed this up, and I'm a Horns fan.

When the game is over I will post the video.

Peace

The PC against Texas in the final 30 seconds would be an intriguing play to discuss. Not necessarily the merit of the call itself, but the timing of the whistle and where the L is looking when he decides to make the call.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9HpEXBqAOgs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was close for sure. I also have no problem with the Lead calling this in transition the only time they should make this call. But it was close.

Peace

That is an excellent call. The ball is on the way down.
The Lead seems to have the best look too.

I agree the ball was on the way down.

White 11 may have gotten a piece of the ball on the initial shot block attempt. Does that change anything?

Here is your play.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i-Rs0L4yl7g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

No, it is still considered a try until the ball hits the floor or it is obvious that the ball will miss.

Great call, ball was on the way down.

I thought that as well. The shot was blocked for sure.

Good call on the PC. Timing is great, Lead watched the play start, develop, and finish and made a ruling on the final result. Sure the player sold it but this call is absolutely defendable by a supervisor which is really all that matters.

Looks to me like the arm never extends, and the defensive player emblishes quite a bit. Did anyone else notice right after that, when OU called the timeout, the calling official heads right to the Texas bench? My first thought was why is he even engaging them at that time.

The defender definitely hit the ball on the release. That doesn't make the try automatically over. The official would need to deem that the ball no longer has a chance to go into the basket. If that is the case, then the try would be over and any subsequent touch could not be GT, but could be BI.

I agree that it is a good call, but I think that the timing of the whistle and where the official is looking when he decides to make the call is a problem.

I believe that it is obvious that the official waits until the try is released and on the way down towards the basket before making the decision that he needs to have a whistle. I'm convinced that the official felt that the player was going to score a basket to give his team the lead and because of that decided to have a whistle. If the player had passed to the corner or thrown up a wild shot which likely would have missed, I believe that the official would not have put a whistle on this action.

I don't find officiating in this manner defendable.

That is goaltending. I thought so at real speed.

That said, that was an amazing block.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

So your criticism is based on something that didn't happen? Ok.

Don't try to analyze why D1 guys (especially the big dogs) do anything like that. It won't make sense to you and won't work in the type of games you do.

You are saying that the official makes the call prior to the offensive player releasing his try?

You are saying that the official isn't looking at the ball on its flight towards the basket?

Both of those look clear and obvious to me in the video.

Early in the Second Half--Traveling play???
 

What do you got???

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tB5bQz3i-NQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

I thought block was good watching the initial replay but I was wrong.

Looks like I'm the only one who had a bad call from the L tonight. Official was well ahead of the baseline and had a good look.

Nothing. He loses control of the ball before touching the floor with anything other than a hand or foot.

What type of games would that be?

I see a player fumbling the ball before losing his pivot foot.

I agree. It's a legal play. No violation.

Then there's the entertaining fan boys on the front row doing their best basketball referee impressions while begging for a traveling call. Oh, th e travesty!!! :rolleyes:

I'm not saying this isn't a great call by the lead, but for the purpose of discussion...

Why not pass on this GT and let the trail possibly pick it up? Trail probably has a great angle on the block and maybe the ball started heading right 2-3 feet away from the rim with no chance at a make.

Just a thought, either way I think it's a good get.

Agree. Good call....clearly on the way down. And the lead is fine to call that in transition.

What does that have to do with anything? He led into the defender with the arm out....and that arm was rigid. That alone is more than enough for the foul.

Which foot is the pivot foot? It looks like the right foot to me which he lifts and then replants. You could make the same argument for the left foot as well.

I think its a travel before he loses control of the ball and falls down.

I don't think the defender was contacted enough to cause the amount of displacement he is showing. He seems to embellish quite a bit. That's all. If he had extended his arm then I could see that being enough force to move the defender that much.

Those are a lot of assumptions from which to criticize a correct call.

Maybe he just took time to process what he saw and then made the correct call.

Trail is nowhere in the picture. The Lead waited for the Center's whistle, which never came, so the Lead made the call late as he should.

The play was in transition. The play is not exclusively for the T or C in transition. They often talk about the Lead calling a GT or BI if they are not settled in on the end line. Actually that has been the philosophy from the NBA who the calling official happened to be a former NBA official.

Also at issue is not just on its downward flight, but did the ball hit the backboard first. I think that is a question. Honestly, I would like an answer from the calling official what exactly was his reasoning for the call so that would tell if he felt the ball hit the backboard or not first. That is the part I was focused on mostly, but there is a case to be made this was going downward as well.

Peace

I thought the shot got tipped, then pinned against the backboard by the secondary defender, prior to the ball hitting the backboard.

The shot did get tipped, but that does not change the status of the shot.

Peace

Anybody else have a PC foul? Defender was significantly displaced.

I'm aware of that, but was the ball pinned before it started on downward flight. It's close.

No. Not sure how the defender was displaced significantly when the ball handler falls down?

Peace

No travel. The ball came lose as the ball contacted the floor before he fell to the floor.

The replay booth, on review, could only determine that the call stands. ;)

No. It was not. It wan't that close.

On the offensive foul on the drive...

I'm leaning toward a no call.The amount of contact does not match up to the reaction that the defender shows. I think the defender throws his arms in a "fool the referee" manner in order to draw a foul.

I'm with APG, I'd probably have a no call. But watch the defender's location at the time of impact and where he lands after the impact by the ball handler. The defender is displaced 3 or 4 feet. Why shouldn't this be PC?

As it relates to the defender's displacement, I don't see the relevance of the ball handler falling after he slammed into the defender's torso.

The location of the impact means nothing to me. He stood his ground and the ball handler fell over. If he was put at a disadvantage, he would be at the other end of the lane or falling down himself.

Contact can be severe and not be a foul. I would not even come close to considering this a PC foul even if the ball handler was upright. And certainly not a high level call if made when players bounce off of each other often and no foul is called nor should be called.

Peace

When a defender clearly embellishes contact, it doesn't absolve the ball handler from a PC foul, but it does make it more difficult for us to determine the severity of the contact.
For me, if I can't tell if a player was knocked down or fell due to his own embellishment, I'll probably no-call it.

Are we talking about the same play? Are we talking about the travel play or the elbow drive play?

Peace

I've got lost on who is talking about what play.

I was discussing APG's comments on the defender embellishing contact.

The main problem of putting more than one video in a thread. :/

True, but I would rather have one thread with all the plays instead of 3 or 4 different threads with several plays. All he had to do is quote the play, but I can understand why he did not do that in this situation.

Peace

GT - The ball does appear to be on the downward flight. Now from this angle I can't tell if it still has a chance to go in after the initial deflection. Assuming it does that is a good get at that speed and angle.

PC - I think you have to get that one all the time. Regardless of "embellishment" the offense is creating and holding space they are not entitled to with their forearm if defense was doing it we would have a call. If you just no call it the offense is using illegal contact to gain advantage regardless of the sell job.

Travel - Broken play. Fumble happens before a foot is lifted. Depending on which foot official judges as pivot would be the difference here. There is an argument to be made that there is travel before the fall happens (1 foot hop, into 1-2 landing). But I didn't catch it until the slow mo.

Vid Request: Texas vs Oklahoma
 

If I'm going to call that extended forearm against the defense (one of the automatics) then I'm going to call the PC foul when the ball handler does it, too.

100% agree on the extended forearm.

That's why I'm wondering why nobody else has a PC foul on the travel play. A1 bangs into the torso of B1, who had LGP, and was displaced several feet. If B1 had created that kind of contact on A1, I think we all would agree it's a foul.

Agreed, but I've got a travel on 5 after he gets control, before I see a foul.

Judgement. In this case, while there might be some displacement, the contact did not prevent B1 from performing any defensive movements. In fact, it simply knocked A1 to the floor.

Banging into the torso isn't an automatic.

I figure if it's an automatic foul on B, why should A be able to do it?

Again, because that is acceptable contact. The ball handler falls, so not sure what disadvantage he is put at when the guy that comes at him falls.

And I think your "several feet" is an exaggeration. He moves, but not as much as the ball handler.

This is why you see the play start, develop and finish. If you call a play in the start process, you call a foul that obviously did not need to be called. If the ball handler does not drop the ball, we have a travel for sure.

Again, all contact is not a foul. Players are not going to be stationary when contacted. Obviously a guy that did some weights stood his ground and was still in position to keep his position and helped cause the ball handler to fall.

Peace

That's the point I'm making. I'm not saying I would have called it, but I was surprised that nobody was discussing that part of the play.

(Talking about the travel video)

Nothing in that video is an automatic.

And I agree with some others here. One video per thread is what's going to be considered best practices going forward.

Edited to say: This has revealed a schism between the moderators, so we'll be discussing it further. In the meantime, please clearly mention which play you're talking about.

I still say he traveled before he fell by replacing his pivot foot. Pretty clearly to me and also with the benefit of slow mo replay.

The L can't see exactly when he loses control of the ball because he's looking through bodies.

It would have been on the C to get the travel here and Buddy Hield is blocking his view.

No travel on the fall.

If members get a vote, I vote for one video per thread.

What do you do if people ask for several plays in one thread? Part of this is member driven.

Peace

Well, for one, I think that too many are asked for in a "I didn't get a look at that and I'd just like to see it again" mode, and not in a "what can I learn from that" mode. So, I'd probably not put so many up. I do recognize that I'm probably in the minority on this.

Second, the responder can create separate threads and respond to the OP that they are posted (or not) and the original thread can be deleted (or will go away). Or, one thread for all requests and separate threads for each video.

Well in this particular thread people asked about 2 plays in this game\. I posted them to keep things streamlined on some level. I thought we always did it that way. It might get confusing if we discuss the same game in different threads. But I will do what the moderators want me to do when I post up. I do not think there is a stated policy either way. It really makes little difference to me. I just know that when someone says something similar the moderators combine the threads.

I think problem is mostly solved if people just reference the play in question, but I can see the confusion.

If the moderators have some insight, I will do what they wish.

It really makes little difference to me in the long run.

Peace

You are correct in that is the way it has always been done. And it has always been confusing once you get past the first couple of replies after the videos are posted. You have to parse back through the replies sometimes to see which play it is that is being discussed.

Personally, I don't think 2-3 plays form the same game generally have anything to do with each other. Most of the time, the plays and the issues are isolated to a single play.